2011 (7) TMI 496 - SC - Indian Laws

SLP - Revenue consensus was between party and appellant when order passed by honrable court (2010 -TMI - 77518 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - Assessee denied the above fact - Held That - Review petition be filed before the High Court within a period of three weeks. If the same is filed accordingly, the High Court will entertain such petition without raising any objection with regard to the period of limitation and shall hear the petition on merits

Summary

Issues:
Consent between counsel, contradictory orders, review petition, withdrawal of petition with liberty to file review petition.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered a case where the High Court recorded a consensus between the counsel for the parties regarding contradictory orders concerning the same petitioner. The petitioners denied giving any consent or instructions for such a consensus. The Court acknowledged this denial and suggested that the petitioners should file a review petition before the High Court to address the issue. The Court granted permission for the petitioners to withdraw the petition with the liberty to file a review petition within three weeks. The High Court was directed to entertain the review petition without objections regarding the period of limitation and to hear the petition on its merits, considering the matter's pendency in the Supreme Court for the duration.

This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of consent between counsel and contradictory orders in a case. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that any consensus or instructions given by the client to the counsel are accurately represented in the legal proceedings. In this instance, since the petitioners denied providing any such consent, the Court allowed them the opportunity to seek a review of the impugned contents in the High Court's judgment.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the procedural aspect of filing a review petition. It highlighted that if there was no actual consent or instructions given by the petitioners to their counsel, a review petition could be a suitable recourse to seek appropriate relief. By permitting the withdrawal of the petition with the liberty to file a review petition, the Court provided a procedural pathway for the petitioners to rectify any discrepancies or errors in the earlier judgment.

Overall, the judgment focused on upholding the principles of fairness and ensuring that the petitioners have the opportunity to address any concerns regarding contradictory orders or misrepresentations in the legal proceedings. By allowing the withdrawal of the petition and granting the liberty to file a review petition, the Court facilitated a mechanism for the petitioners to seek redressal and clarification on the disputed issues in the case.